Close Database

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no meaningful annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the worker-process termination, the failure mode when the DB is not attached unless force=True, and the detach-but-keep-worker-alive behavior for multi-session cases. It does not mention the save parameter's effect, but the core side effects are clearly presented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence and supporting conditional behavior in three short follow-up sentences. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential invocation context: which database argument to provide, when force is needed, and what happens with concurrent sessions. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The only notable gap is the undocumented save parameter, which could affect whether close persists or discards changes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains database ('specify when multiple are open') and force ('unless force=True'), but save is never described. This is a meaningful but incomplete compensation for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-object pair, 'close a database and terminate its worker process', which makes the action unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like open_database, save_database, and list_databases by focusing on closure and process termination.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear conditions for use: specify database when multiple are open, force=True to override the attached-session requirement, and behavior when other sessions still use the database. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use save_database instead', but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.